Society - What went wrong?

[koan]

Every society has its dark side and none can claim accomplishment of utopia. Aside from lack of perfection there is a constant sense of unrest in the average person. Some say guilt, some say fear, some say loneliness... Where do we go wrong?

The questions to examine are many. A good starting point is to examine the nature of humans, what drives us, stirs us to action, fascinates us and why.

Ernest Becker, in his last work, Escape From Evil, presents man as a helpless creature overwhelmed by our insignificance in the world and desperate to find manifestations of the divine within the realm of our senses so that we can find a way to relate to/control our external reality. From this, the rest of our problems spring. I find his arguments compelling.

In short, we are desperately seeking to avoid insignificance and either take power or give it away in attempts to manifest control over what overwhelms us, namely the universe. If we can't attain recognition of divinity in ourselves we invest power in idols, politicians, great sportsmen or war heroes in the hopes that by attachment we can attain some of their divinity. Some are content to acquire their immortality through the minds of those that love them and our children or by obsessions with family trees.

Becker identifies the surplus of a society (wealth) as both unreasonable behaviour and a source of injustice at the point where the surplus stopped being sacrificed in expiation to the unknown source and came under the control of "leaders," originally spiritual men turned politicians, who then realised they could gain power via dispersion.

Do people, average people, have power in society?

Do people feel innately overwhelmed by the external world?

Is the accumulation of wealth unreasonable behaviour?

[Clodhopper]

Do people, average people, have power in society?


We have the vote. I think it's one of those things you only really notice if it's taken away.

Do people feel innately overwhelmed by the external world?


Some combination of some of us all the time and all of us some of the time. :wah:

Is the accumulation of wealth unreasonable behaviour?


Once you have satisfied material requirements you are accumulating power more than money. It's hard to argue that's unreasonable. It's much easier to argue that it's not beneficial to society as a whole when individuals acquire (for example) political leverage through personal wealth and are able to twist normal processes in their favour.

[mikeinie]

Hi Koan, it is great to see you back again.

Do average people have power? Yes, when they decide to use it, and when they decide to get up of their butts and do something.

On society women were not just handed the right to vote one day, there was an entire suffragette movement. Average women protesting, being arrested and fighting for their right.

Darker skinned people were not just suddenly given equal status and the right to vote, no, they fought long and hard for it. It took demonstrations, protests, riots, arrests.

Change only happens when average people join together and become one voice.

Yes people feel overwhelmed by the external world. The world has become much smaller and what use to happen thousands of miles away in another country either had no impact directly on people, or it took a long time for the impact to reach them. Now with media and technology what happens in another country today, may directly impact you tomorrow. Other people’s problems become instantly our own.

There has always been an accumulation of wealth. Governments now as they always have, really only have an interest in business, it is only when people join together and demand social changes is when they pay attentions to what people want.

The difference now is that people are complacent and have become chat room protesters, blogging demonstrators, and youtube rebels. This amounts to nothing, and this is why nothing changes.

[Ahso!]

What a well formatted and expressed query. As is always the case with you, Koan. Throughly comprehensive and concise. I hope you don't mind me wondering round in it. I'll try not to muddy things up too much.

I haven't read Becker's piece you refer to but I certainly get the gist of it by your fine representation.

I have found that for me, any time I consider a philosophical inquiry, whether it be on an individual or group level, I must have satisfactorily resolved two basic questions whose answers must sit well with my being. They are: 1) Who am/are I/we, and 2) Where did I/we come from. The answers to those questions are the foundation of my personal philosophy regarding life's purpose, or non-purpose. One of my daughters use to say: the purpose of life is to give life purpose. Sounds reasonable enough to me.

If I adopt and except the ideals of a religion my answers are reflective of it and if other than religious, in my case evolutionary, then that is reflective. Evolutionary it is then.

I must therefore, if you don't mind, remove the value of "wrong" from the equation. Not that it doesn't belong there for anyone else, just not for me. So I'll endeavor to address your 3 questions and foundation statements as in: Society - What went?

Becker's arguments certainly are compelling as you say.

I 'm of the opinion that all life endeavors to survive in order to both live as long as possible and pass on their genes through reproduction and everything else follows from that.

I believe that the formula is equal in both the individual as well as the group. The confusion, it seems to me throughout the time since consciousness evolved in us humans is consciousness itself. If we are merely an other species that will exist and then probably disappear eventually, why do we have this brain thingy? From my perspective it isn't a means to an end, but simply a mutation that had use for our survival and reproductive process. For me its that simple, but I'm simple minded.

So, this brain helps us adapt through consciousness and provides enormous advantages for our species over the rest of nature, like for example the giant Redwood trees. Those tress are beautiful and majestic to us, but the fact is that they are so big through adaptation in order to starve other living things smaller than them of sunlight so other species below can not grow and take the nutrients that the tress crave.

Just look around, we are quite impressive as a species. When I was very religious, a friend of mine would say: You know, God must look down on us and say "wow, look what this creation has done. They've truly made the best of it." My friend was an engineer by trade and education, so who was I to question his evaluation and conclusions regarding everything and anything in the name of God?

The brain then itself develops adaptations for our ensured prolonged existence and one has been socializing and grouping, whether it be family grouping, sports groupings, communicating groupings like this forum, economic groupings like the stock market, but what has worked most well to this point has been religious grouping. Why?

It seems that a necessary adaptation for group survival is civility and we've adopted the idea of morality to use as a foundation for our continued progressive approach to species survival. Its purpose is to ensure resolution of conflicts so ;1) we don't kill each other off, 2) ensure the collective protection of the group from any hostile outside groups. We see this play out constantly during times such as the present in which great stress is present. We can see the groups hardening their postures internationally and within given cultures. The fights become right/wrong shouting matches....Its all for the survival of the species.

Their are problems with the religious grouping formats though as we've all witnessed over time. You see, the groups accepts the religious concept because no one member is 'better' than any other member because there is a supreme being that can be looked to for unbiased guidance, but then the false prophets pop up and instability arises which results in in-group fighting, evolutionary competition is introduced naturally through the psyche and all hell brakes loose. the main component though is sacrifice. Sacrifice ensures membership conformity.

I believe we are in a time where we are beginning to witness the emergence of a new kind of group, which isn't even a group at all , which is less aggressive, less focused on monetary and material value, could not care less about trivial matters, tune out of prejudices and discrimination and focus on making life more appreciative. We see them everywhere, but they blend into the normal fabric of society well enough to be mostly invisible with a few exceptions here and there. They don't even know who the are yet in the vast, vast majority of cases. They are the autistic among us.

Presently, we see the autistic trying to function in a world whose structure and rules are not conducive to them so they're frustrated, their abilities have been exploited by many without either party aware of it, but one day things will change with life on earth as we now know it.

But really, its all just survival of the fittest. theres nothing more to it. We are only a species which is no higher or lower than any other. we are just better at survival due to natural selection, sexual selection and multi-level selection.

Life is really that simple...At least thats what I've found so far..

[koan]

wow. Thanks for the warm reception and thought that went into the replies thus far. My internet is a bit sketchy until next week so excuse any brevity of response for the moment.

A lot of aspects present themselves when discussing society as a general topic. The tendency to group ourselves seems to come from the result of increased productivity and surplus. People see the amount of surplus they create as an indication that they are living well/ in a way pleasing to God. The need for that manifestation can be called many things but it doesn't require a belief in God.

I want to address all the points brought up but will have to do so slowly.

[coberst]

This is a great post about a great thinker.

Becker asked the question “why do humans do the things they do”, which I am perhaps paraphrasing because I do not have it before me.

Becker has written four books that encompass his thoughts on this very important question: Beyond Alienation, Birth and Death of Meaning, The Denial of Death, and Escape from Evil. Anyone interested in this question might be well advised to read these books.

It seems to me that one must take his conclusion about the transcendent carefully because I think that one might mistakenly think he is advocating a turn to what we normally call Christian religion whereas I think that he is using religious words with a meaning not so clearly religious. I claim that he uses religious words to focus on the cosmic more than on standard religion.

People could be much more than they are now but it will require that they become much more intellectually sophisticated than they now are.

[koan]

I'm also functioning without the books in front of me, having loaned them to a friend at the moment. There is a passage in Escape from Evil in which he makes a pretty good argument that all people are religious, even atheists. The idea, as I recall, is that our initial experience of the world around us, no matter how the experience is explained by our caregivers and peers, generates a sense of divinity regarding observations such as the sun causing plants to grow as if by magic from the soil. Even though we have, via science, found many explanations on how these things happen, we still don't know what gives the spark of life.

How we come to terms with the sense of helplessness and, Becker claims, guilt for taking from the earth varies from culture to culture. He states that one of the big losses to the average person was having their ability taken away to participate in ceremonies and religious rituals of the group as an act of expiation and communication with the perceived spirit world. The leaders, political and spiritual, who have acquired the power invested by their followers become the guardians of their people's relationship to the divine.

[coberst]

It is conventional wisdom for those who are versed in psychology and whom I have read that our most dominating motivation for what we do is our consciousness of our mortality. Most of this is unconscious forces because we do a very good job of repressing this motivation because we cannot handle the anxiety produced.

The most glaring example is that we have created soul, then gods, then God, and then religion because of our inability to handle our mortality.

I would say that the overall message in Becker's Pulitzer Prize winning book The Denial of Death is this message "man's refusal to acknowledge his own mortality".

The book Beyond Alienation by Ernest Becker attempts to clarify the nature of the human problem and to provide a solution for this problem. If humanity is to resolve this problem it must find a way to instruct itself wisely in the matter of social morality. Humanity must develop a synthesis of knowledge that can serve as a reasoned basis for constructing a moral rationality. We need to develop a means whereby secular moral philosophy becomes the central consideration for learning.

Moral philosophy teaches the hierarchy of values. The moral philosophy Becker speaks of recognizes that knowledge is never absolute and therefore must not remain static; it must be dynamic, reflecting the constant discovery initiated by science. Knowledge is that which helps to promote human welfare in the here and now.

Pragmatism is a self-consistent philosophy that honors the idea that humans value that which is relative to what is satisfying. This did not mean just the satisfaction of human appetite but there is recognition that humans are rational creatures; meaning that a value is judged so only when it is chosen in a critical mode of careful examination. “And it is the community of men, in free and open inquiry and exchange, who formulate the ideal values.”

Dewey’s pragmatism was dedicated to the task of social reconstruction. Education was considered to be “the supreme human interest” wherein all philosophical problems come to a head. Dewey’s pragmatism failed because it was a call to action without a standard for action. Education must be progressive and must have a strong critical content.

The big question then is what can philosophy tell education to do? “What truths is man to pursue for the sake of man? What should we learn about man and society, knowledge that would show us, by clear and compelling logic, how to act and how to choose in our person and social life?”

Becker thinks that we must transform the university from its present vocational education institution into one leading the transformation of society. It is in this solution that I differ with Becker. I do not think that higher education will ever change its role of preparing students to become productive workers and avid consumers—at least not until our society has developed a much greater degree of intellectual sophistication.

I think that in the United States there is a great intellectual asset that goes unused. Most adults engage in little or no critical intellectual efforts directed at self-actualizing self-learning after their schooling is finished. If a small percentage of our adults would focus some small part of their intellectual energies toward self-actualizing self-learning during the period between the end of their formal education and mid-life they could be prepared to focus serious time and intellectual focus upon creating an intellectual network that could make up a critical intellectual element dedicated toward the regeneration of our society.

[Tan]

What a delicious post Koan.

I've always admired you and have enjoyed reading your posts.

I never respond...just think....

May I also add that you're looking great!

[koan]

I'm reading Beyond Alienation right now. There is a specific concern with specialization and a lack of evenly rounded knowledge in the universities. The trend toward highly specialized professionals/workers seems, to me, to be matched by the trend toward segratory entertainment as well... video games, computers, ipods and televisions are a few examples of the types of entertainment that keep people isolated from social interaction, and from what I hear, the forms of entertainment are progressing further in that direction to where a pair of glasses and matching equipment will completely replace the perception of reality with a video type game that can be played as if the user is walking around in the fantasy world.

We are becoming more and more alienated from each other with each generation.

One of the big concerns with repairing the problem areas in society is how to go backwards... or sideways. There are certain luxuries that people will not be willing to give up even if they know it would balance the world and eliminate starvation/homelessness. People don't like change.

[Saint_]

You want Utopia? No problemo.. Here you go:

Utopia

Is it possible for mankind to achieve a utopia? Or does the dark warlike nature of mankind make that ideal impossible? After all, mankind has been at war with nature and itself for untold millennia.

I believe its possible, but mankind would never enter the agreement voluntarily. Here's what I think the prerequisites would be with a nod to Ira Levin:

For a Utopia to be created, it must be based in reality.

1. Get rid of all national governments, and replace them with a centralized base of co-functioning Series Supercomputers, Give them autonomous decision-making ability, input all world resources and problems, rely on them for allocation. If there were a drought in Uganda, and a surplus of wheat in Russia, then the computers would ship the wheat to the famine.

If any country declares war, the Supercomputers could mobilize the resources of the entire planet to crush the rebellion...but that would be a last resort, to be used only if the "treatments" don't work. (See below)

2. Get rid of all national boundaries; replace it with "The Family" in reference to all mankind. For example, "The Family's colonies on the moon have been very productive this year."

3. Genetically shape all of mankind to a common look. (Preferably, a slightly Chinese-eyed, medium build, tan skin colored race.) No more racism.

4. Test children for abilities constantly during growth, let the Supercomputer, let's call it "Unicomp" or "Uni" for short, decide the best use of their talents for the betterment of the Family and assign them to their specialties at adulthood. No more unemployment.

5. Give each human being "treatments" once a month through an infusion disc placed on the arm. This infusion disc would pass chemicals directly through the skin. Included would be a birth control chemical, an exfoliant to get rid of the need for shaving, and assorted neurological chemicals to keep the people "happy and satisfied" and control excess, irrational emotion.

6. Put a bracelet on each persons arm. To go anywhere, you must touch the bracelet to a scanner, and receive permission from the computer first. This prevents unnecessary waste of resources and energy. You could claim a vacation occasionally, but only if the computer could allocate the resources and could spare you from your job. All efforts would be directed towards the common goal.

7. As a back-up system, counselors with portable laptops would oversee all members of the family regularly to look for aberrant behavior. Children would be taught to immediately contact one of these counselors if they saw any unusual behavior.

8. All competitive sports will be removed, since competition itself would have to be removed. Why compete, when you are assigned everything you need for life? Instead, mandatory group exercises will be required for the entire population every morning.

9. Since old age is a drain on resources, and the investment of resources and materials in their existence no longer is less than the returns, then they must be eliminated. The average age of life should be terminated at around 72. The computer will determine the age of death, and it could increase, as medicine gets better.

So there you have it...everything you are asking for. No worries, permanent employment, no corporations, no racism, no war, no strife, no nationalism, no corruption, only the shining Family working towards mankind's future in the stars.

Like it?

Yeah...I don't either.

[coberst]

koan;1262845 wrote: One of the big concerns with repairing the problem areas in society is how to go backwards... or sideways. There are certain luxuries that people will not be willing to give up even if they know it would balance the world and eliminate starvation/homelessness. People don't like change.


The following speaks to your concern:

Copied from today's Washington Post

Bellying up to environmentalism

washingtonpost.com



We know more than we've ever known about the innards of the global food system. We understand that food can both nourish and kill. We know that its production can both destroy and enhance our environment. We know that farming touches every aspect of our lives -- the air we breathe, the water we drink, and the soil we need.

So it's hard to avoid concluding that eating cannot be personal. What I eat influences you. What you eat influences me. Our diets are deeply, intimately and necessarily political.

This realization changes everything for those who avoid meat. As a vegetarian I've always felt the perverse need to apologize for my dietary choice. It inconveniences people. It smacks of self-righteousness. It makes us pariahs at dinner parties. But the more I learn about the negative impact of meat production, the more I feel that it's the consumers of meat who should be making apologies.

Here's why: The livestock industry as a result of its reliance on corn and soy-based feed accounts for over half the synthetic fertilizer used in the United States, contributing more than any other sector to marine dead zones. It consumes 70 percent of the water in the American West -- water so heavily subsidized that if irrigation supports were removed, ground beef would cost $35 a pound. Livestock accounts for at least 21 percent of greenhouse-gas emissions globally -- more than all forms of transportation combined. Domestic animals -- most of them healthy -- consume about 70 percent of all the antibiotics produced. Undigested antibiotics leach from manure into freshwater systems and impair the sex organs of fish.

[mikeinie]

koan;1262845 wrote: I'm reading Beyond Alienation right now. There is a specific concern with specialization and a lack of evenly rounded knowledge in the universities. The trend toward highly specialized professionals/workers seems, to me, to be matched by the trend toward segratory entertainment as well... video games, computers, ipods and televisions are a few examples of the types of entertainment that keep people isolated from social interaction, and from what I hear, the forms of entertainment are progressing further in that direction to where a pair of glasses and matching equipment will completely replace the perception of reality with a video type game that can be played as if the user is walking around in the fantasy world.

We are becoming more and more alienated from each other with each generation.

One of the big concerns with repairing the problem areas in society is how to go backwards... or sideways. There are certain luxuries that people will not be willing to give up even if they know it would balance the world and eliminate starvation/homelessness. People don't like change.


Technology has changed things definitely, but different is not necessarily worse.

If it was not for computers and internet there would be no way that I would even know of you, or be able to engage in this topic with groups of people from all over the world. Sure I am here physically alone at the moment, and yet I am engage with a wider community.

I do not live in the same country as my parents or siblings; years ago communication would have been limited to letters and the odd phone call depending on the long distance charges. My mother who is close to 80, got herself a laptop and was trained on basic computer use and on a regular bases we are on Skype were we talk face to face and she sees my kids. At no cost other than internet charges.

Yes, kids do spend more time on computer games, the biggest risk to this in my opinion is the lack of exercise and physical socializing, however even computer games are interactive and again without borders as more and more games are played by community internet.

Because of the technology I have made contacts with old friends through facebook that I most likely never would have heard from again as we all moved in different directions and places.

With seniors, we have not yet grasped as a society as to how to manage the longer life expectancy of people, long life with health is one thing, long life with poor health is a social dilemma. However, once again technology has helped as seniors would be isolated are now also on line debating on forums and emailing etc.

It is a double edge sword, the more we dive ourselves into this virtual world the less physically sociable we may become, (how many of your neighbors do you know?) Yet at the same time we are becoming more globally sociable.

We are living in interesting times.

[Ahso!]

Saint_;1262904 wrote: You want Utopia? No problemo..[I think we achieve Utopia as individuals and groups everyday we wake up and understand we are still here.coberst;1263089 wrote: The following speaks to your concern:

Copied from today's Washington Post

Bellying up to environmentalism

washingtonpost.com



We know more than we've ever known about the innards of the global food system. We understand that food can both nourish and kill. We know that its production can both destroy and enhance our environment. We know that farming touches every aspect of our lives -- the air we breathe, the water we drink, and the soil we need.

So it's hard to avoid concluding that eating cannot be personal. What I eat influences you. What you eat influences me. Our diets are deeply, intimately and necessarily political.

This realization changes everything for those who avoid meat. As a vegetarian I've always felt the perverse need to apologize for my dietary choice. It inconveniences people. It smacks of self-righteousness. It makes us pariahs at dinner parties. But the more I learn about the negative impact of meat production, the more I feel that it's the consumers of meat who should be making apologies.

Here's why: The livestock industry as a result of its reliance on corn and soy-based feed accounts for over half the synthetic fertilizer used in the United States, contributing more than any other sector to marine dead zones. It consumes 70 percent of the water in the American West -- water so heavily subsidized that if irrigation supports were removed, ground beef would cost $35 a pound. Livestock accounts for at least 21 percent of greenhouse-gas emissions globally -- more than all forms of transportation combined. Domestic animals -- most of them healthy -- consume about 70 percent of all the antibiotics produced. Undigested antibiotics leach from manure into freshwater systems and impair the sex organs of fish.Very well said and I could not agree more (not that that matters). I'm in the precess of becoming a vegetarian, but beside the fact that theres so much in the way of thinking about shopping for food and acquainting myself with new tastes and expectations with the entire eating process as well as the treatment and environmental issues, I find it difficult to sort of ignore the fact that meat eating probably has contributed greatly to our human ability to adapt and survive . Its believed that since the human brain is something like 90+% cholesterol due to meat eating thats why its so big and thereby affording us huge intellectual and consciousness advantages over other species. Any advice about that?

[koan]

Escape From Evil was written to explain Becker's discovery when asking the question "why have our utopias failed?" He always tried to be optimistic about human nature but, in the end, insisted that unless we look at and accept the dark side of human nature, we will never find ways to successfully evolve our societies.

While Saint's description of Utopia sounds like it addresses the main areas of failure, it is too clinical to be viable. Like in The Matrix when The Architect tells Neo that they had a perfect world designed but it was too perfect and people rejected it. The computerized solution ignores that computers are designed by humans. They aren't a manifestation of God in metallic perfection.

Food is definitely a good starting place. I've considered what the effect would be if all communities were forced to produce their own food... not permitted imports

[koan]

I agree. Consumerism hurts communities.

There is a bigger push to buy local now and a few arguments against it. One of the big scare tactics to promote consumerism is that the economy would collapse without it. Sure, some people would be less wealthy.

[coberst]

Robert J;1263103 wrote: I find it difficult to sort of ignore the fact that meat eating probably has contributed greatly to our human ability to adapt and survive . Its believed that since the human brain is something like 90+% cholesterol due to meat eating thats why its so big and thereby affording us huge intellectual and consciousness advantages over other species. Any advice about that?


It is apparently true that becoming carnivorous led to quick development of the human brain but being carnivorous today may directly shorten the survival of the human species.

[Ahso!]

coberst;1263194 wrote: It is apparently true that becoming carnivorous led to quick development of the human brain but being carnivorous today may directly shorten the survival of the human species.Thats a good point and you may be correct, but boy, we are a tough bunch. No matter how much we do to potentially hurt our DNA, it always seems to repair itself. But perhaps you were referring to the greenhouse gas issue.

[coberst]

Robert J;1263197 wrote: Thats a good point and you may be correct, but boy, we are a tough bunch. No matter how much we do to potentially hurt our DNA, it always seems to repair itself. But perhaps you were referring to the greenhouse gas issue.


I am speaking of:

Over population, health care for the ever increasing elderly, global climate change, terrorism, religious fanaticism, proliferation of WMDs, economic house of cards, unsophisticated citizens, little comprehension of morality/ethics, endless war, dwindling natural resources, poisoned oceans, etc

Especially I am speaking of a rapid changing technology changing our world at a pace far faster than DNA can change to keep up; Darwin informs us that the species that cannot adapt fast enough shall become toast.

[Ahso!]

coberst;1263302 wrote: I am speaking of:

Over population, health care for the ever increasing elderly, global climate change, terrorism, religious fanaticism, proliferation of WMDs, economic house of cards, unsophisticated citizens, little comprehension of morality/ethics, endless war, dwindling natural resources, poisoned oceans, etc

Especially I am speaking of a rapid changing technology changing our world at a pace far faster than DNA can change to keep up; Darwin informs us that the species that cannot adapt fast enough shall become toast.I'm convinced of the impending danger facing us. But I'd like to offer up the idea that we are in fact adapting and at an accelerated speed I might add, which in itself alerts us to the extent of the problems.

I'm sorry to keep harping on this theme, but I believe that the only way to retard and even cease our indulgence to all the enemies we face is for the hunger for them to die down and eventually die off, and for a new focus to emerge. I believe we are witnessing that as more and more 'autistic' people are born. Think about it.

Only thirty years ago in the U.S. only one in 10,000 were born, today its 1 in 150 and continuing that change. Most medical text books insist, as does WebMD that autism is so rare that only 4 in 10,000 living individuals are "affected" while independent research from nearly every other corner insists it is down to 1 in every 200....thats starteling.

I know that you probably don't entertain yourself much with television, but if you'd like to observe an example of the kind of person I'm referring to watch the show "Curb Your Enthusiasm" With Larry David who was the co-creator of the show 'Seinfeld.'

David, whom everyone who knows him and claims he is actually as depicted in the show, could care less about technology, hes rich due to the success of Seinfeld and merely exists with his riches, but would get along just fine had they not been a part of his life. He goes about life everyday on a mission to try to understand his surroundings and relationships. Hes not a hard charging gatherer of things. In essence he is portraying a high functioning autistic individual. Woody Allen is so much like Larry David too.

I believe this is an example of the 'new' human being and when all things are considered, is the only way out of our technological and hoarding dilemma that scorches or planet. In short we need to take a step back if you will, and I believe that is what is occurring. not to say incidentally that everyone will seem as David, as there are also very highly focused people such as yourself (I'm not implying that you are autistic, but surely people such as you could only enhance our survival chances). David is a type of artist/entertainer and is very focused and good at that.



That said, I'm sounding like evolution is a means with an end in mind, which of course it is not. There is no such thing as progress when considering evolution, which is why autism as well as other so called neurological "diseases" is considered by some to be Darwin's less known and applied theory, pangenesis.